Skip to content


Ramaiyar and anr. Vs. P.S. Samimatha Ayyar and Three ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1912)ILR35Mad726
AppellantRamaiyar and anr.
RespondentP.S. Samimatha Ayyar and Three ors.
Cases ReferredUamodar Gopal Dikshit v. Chintaman Balkrishna Karve I.L.R.
Excerpt:
trespass, suit for damages for - provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887), article 31, schedule ii--jurisdiction under. - .....the trespass and there is no allegation that the defendants remained in possession at the time of suit.3. on this view i consider the ease to be similar to that dealt with in annamalai v. subramanyan i.l.r. (1892) mad. 298 and the suit to be cognisable by a small cause court. i do not find anything in savarimuthu v. aithurusu rowthar i.l.r. (1902) mad. 103 incompatible with this. the first respondent's vakil refers me to the case of venkoba rao v. muthu aiyar : (1908)18mlj88 . i do not see how that case can be distinguished from the present one; but with great respect to the learned judge who decided it, i think the decision of a divisional bench in annamalai v. subramanyan i.l.r. (1892) mad. 298 must be followed in preference, the latter is moreover in accordance with my own view of.....
Judgment:

1. The only point for decision is whether the suit is exempted from the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court by reason of Article 31 of schedule II of Act IX of 1887.

2. From the plaint it seems to me that the suit must be regarded as one for damages for a single act of trespass, the said damages, being measured by the landholder's share of the standing crop to which the plaintiffs were entitled and which the defendants carried away. It is not denied that the plaintiffs were in possession (under a razinama decree) prior to the trespass and there is no allegation that the defendants remained in possession at the time of suit.

3. On this view I consider the ease to be similar to that dealt with in Annamalai v. Subramanyan I.L.R. (1892) Mad. 298 and the suit to be cognisable by a Small Cause Court. I do not find anything in Savarimuthu v. Aithurusu Rowthar I.L.R. (1902) Mad. 103 incompatible with this. The first respondent's vakil refers me to the case of Venkoba Rao v. Muthu Aiyar : (1908)18MLJ88 . I do not see how that case can be distinguished from the present one; but with great respect to the learned Judge who decided it, I think the decision of a divisional Bench in Annamalai v. Subramanyan I.L.R. (1892) Mad. 298 must be followed in preference, The latter is moreover in accordance with my own view of the true meaning of Article 31. [Uamodar Gopal Dikshit v. Chintaman Balkrishna Karve I.L.R. (1893) Bom. 42.] has no bearing on the present question.

4. The Subordinate Judge will he directed to receive the plaint on the Small Cause side and dispose of it according to law. The costs will abide the result.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //